Facts

• (!) Appellant convicted under Sections 302, 460, 458 read with Section 34 IPC for murder of three persons and sentenced to death by Sessions Judge, affirmed by High Court.
• [1000265490001] Incident occurred on night of 29-30 August 1996 at tube well; three deceased (Sahu, his daughter Jamila @ Guddo, Rabi Singh - appellant's uncle); sole eyewitness PW-6 Billo (aged 7 years) injured; co-accused Raju Bhaiya absconded.
• [1000265490002] Deceased Sahu resided at tube well of PW-5 Amar Singh (appellant's father) and brothers for cultivation; Raju Bhaiya employed to tend cattle; PW-6 left at tube well evening prior to incident to accompany Jamila.
• [1000265490003] Prosecution case: Appellant arrived on motorcycle, joined by Raju with hammer; assaulted Sahu, Jamila; attempted to strangle and assault PW-6 who became unconscious.
• [1000265490004] PW-5 found bodies in morning, PW-6 injured; PW-6 stated to PW-5 en route to hospital that Raju Bhaiya and motorcyclist killed her 'Nana' and 'Masi' with hammer.
• [1000265490005] PW-5 lodged FIR mentioning PW-6's statement naming Raju Bhaiya and motorcyclist; scene suggested theft; blood-stained hammer recovered.
• [1000265490006] Investigating Officer prepared inquest reports, site plan, recovered blood-stained earth and hammer; post-mortem conducted.
• [1000265490007] Rabi Singh's body in motor room; PW-6 silent on his assault.
• [1000265490008] Post-mortem on Rabi Singh: incised wounds, fractures from sharp cutting weapons.
• [1000265490009] Post-mortem on Sahu: bruises, rib fractures consistent with blunt object like hammer.
• [1000265490010] Post-mortem on Jamila: bruises, rib/sternum fractures consistent with blunt object.
• [1000265490011] Medical evidence confirmed homicidal deaths; Rabi Singh by sharp weapon, others by blunt object.
• [1000265490012] PW-6's first statement (Ex PW-6/A) recorded 30.8.1996 by doctor: named Raju Bhaiya; father's leading question prompted nod naming appellant Jagga.
• [1000265490013] PW-6's statement to IO on 3.9.1996 (Ext DA/1): named appellant on motorcycle with Raju; detailed assaults.
• [1000265490014] PW-6's statement to Magistrate on 6.9.1996 (Ext PW-6/B): named Jagga and Raju (Bhaiya); claimed prior knowledge as he visited tube well daily.
• [1000265490016] Defence: PW-6 from different village, unknown to appellant; no prior opportunity to know/see him; delay in statements allowed tutoring; no TIP.
• [1000265490017] Trial Court relied on PW-6 as truthful child witness despite delays/leading question; found her prior knowledge via tube well visits.
• [1000265490022] PW-4 (PW-6's father): narrated events, claimed PW-6 named both assailants to doctor; cross-exam exposed contradictions/omissions.
• [1000265490025] PW-5 (FIR lodged) declared hostile; not eyewitness.
• [1000265490026] PW-6 deposed 5 years later: claimed knew appellant as son of tube well owner Amar Singh.

Ratio

• [1000265490028] Serious doubt if 7-year-old PW-6 from different village knew tube well owner or had seen appellant prior; mere family relation insufficient for identification.
• [1000265490028] Father's leading question in first statement (Ex PW-6/A) prompted naming appellant, casting doubt on truthfulness; repetition in later statements unreliable without prior acquaintance evidence.
• [1000265490029] Unexplained 3-day delay in IO statement despite PW-6 conscious/injured sole eyewitness; opportunity for tutoring; Trial Court reasoning on shock erroneous.
• [1000265490029] No evidence PW-6 saw appellant before incident evening; her 5-year-later explanation of knowing him via tube well ownership unacceptable, absent prior mentions or proof.
• [1000265490030] PW-6 silent on Rabi Singh's killing despite proximity; no motive/animus against uncle shown; absence significant with doubts on identification but confirmed role of absconding Raju.
• [1000265490031] No link of appellant to recovered motorcycle/watch; conviction solely on solitary child witness unsafe without proof she knew/identified accused.
• (!) Appellant acquitted on benefit of doubt; conviction unsustainable on doubtful sole child testimony lacking identification opportunity.